Talk:Fallen (album)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The image is too large. Ideally it should be no more than 200x200 pixels in size. Also could you please add information to images when uploading such as copyright, year, who owns it etc. Iam 00:25, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
I found out by own experience that the best size is 215x* (since the height may vary) --KeyStorm 22:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Terrible Mistake
Australia, is NOT part of Asia, if it must come under the asia headline, which is very inaccurate, it should AT LEAST say "Asia/Pacific". However, since the others are sorted by continent, i think it would be appropriate to do the same for ALL countries and put Australia under the continent Australia.
Do you think it should mention how many times Fallen has gone platinum in contries other than America? because in Australia it is 7x Platinum Zacanescence 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you are welcome to add it to the "Charts" section yourself, or I can add it when I do my sweep of reformatting the various Evanescence articles (whenever that may be). Up to you. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Nomination
This article falls below GA standards at present - needs a lot more work. LuciferMorgan 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, will do...;
1. All cites need to use a cite template and need retrieval dates.
2. Not comprehensive at all - compare this GA nominee to an album I recently got to GA, namely Christ Illusion. The difference is immense;
- Critical reception? There's none there.
- A section dealing with lyrical themes? Not present either.
- Too many boxes. You're going for a Good article, not list.
- A lead summarising the article? The whole lead has more prose than the rest of the article.
As I said, this article needs a ton of work. I suggest peer review, and being receptive to suggestions for improvement - I highlighted areas for improvement in the Amy Lee PR but nobody responded. Good luck getting this article to GA, but it needs a lot more work yet. LuciferMorgan 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on the extensive work needed that I outlined above, I'm failing the article. I hope you'll consider addressing the concerns I outlined. If you feel my concerns are unjust, feel free to seek a review at WP:GA/R. LuciferMorgan 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- ??? First, all cite need to use a cite template??? Who says that?? Have you read this WP:WIAGA??? Here says that citations are essential, but not that the use of cite templates is obligatory.
- Second, critical recption. If you haven't read, under the charts is this.
- Fallen spent 58 weeks on the Billboard Top 20, and 100 weeks on the Billboard Top 200. In the UK, the album spent 33 weeks on the Top 20, and 60 weeks on the Top 75. However, Fallen reentered the UK charts at Number 35 during week 41 of 2006, the week that The Open Door opened at Number 2.Fallen advanced to Number 34 the following week, before falling back out of the Top 40 two weeks later."Fallen" ruled the United World Chart for a total of eight weeks, (seven weeks in 2003, and one week in 2004) That's the critical reception, isn't it?? Looks like you haven't read the article very well.
- A section dealing with lyrical themes? Not present either. Where is it mentioned that it's obligatory?
- Too many boxes. You're going for a Good article, not list. Too many boxes??? You mean tables?? Is wrong that an article have tables??
- A lead summarising the article? The whole lead has more prose than the rest of the article. Ok, maybe you are right here. Nothing of critical reception or cite templates or lyrics description is mentioned in the GA critera. I really think your review is bad. You may be right in that thing of the lead, but that other stuff have nothing to do with the GA criteria. Armando.Otalk • Ev 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's not critical reception — that's an analysis of chart performance. While you're correct in saying nothing specifies critical reception in the GA criteria, I think for any half-decent article of this type you really ought to have at last some cited comments from reviewers to demonstrate what the overall response to the album was in the media. Otherwise the coverage doesn't look very comprehensive at all. Angmering 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, Lucifer compared this article with Christ Illusion
Reception and criticism
Christ Illusion was released on August 8, 2006 by American Recordings / Warner Bros. Records. In its first week of release, the album sold 62,000 copies in the United States and debuted at number 5 on the Billboard Chart, the band's highest chart position to date, and their first top 10 charting since 1994's Divine Intervention.[31] Despite its Billboard top ten debut, the album dropped to number 44 the following week.[32] Christ Illusion reached number 9 in Australia,[33] number 3 in Canada, number 6 in Austria, number 8 in the Netherlands, number 10 in Norway and debuted at number 2 in Finland[34] and Germany.[35] The single "Eyes of the Insane" won the "Best Metal Performance" category at the 49th Grammy Awards.[36] Now Angmering, that's not critical reception?
Well, maybe you mean that this... Fallen spent 58 weeks on the Billboard Top 20................ is not critical recpetion, but reception. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion has been resumed at Good article review. LuciferMorgan 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)